Greetings:

From the very beginnings of the United States of America, monetary policy was one of the nation's great divisive issues. It was what was behind Shays' rebellion, Hamilton's plan to for the federal government to assume the states' debts, the struggles over the First and Second Bank of the United States, the Panic of 1837, the issuance of Greenbacks (US Notes, i.e. unsecured paper currency), the repeal of bimetalism (ie. a dual gold and silver standard with the ratio fixed by law) in 1873, The Bland-Allison Silver Purchase Act of 1878, the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890, William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech, and more. By the beginning of the 20th century there were hard money Democrats, hard money Republicans, soft money Democrats, and soft money Republicans, as well as many voices from minor parties, all tugging in different directions. So in 1913, the factions of the two major parties agreed on a truce that would take the question of monetary policy out of the political arena (i.e. Congress) and turn it over to a board of supposedly non-partisan experts. That truce was the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and that board of supposedly non-partisan experts would be almost entirely composed of bankers. So it has been for the past 98 years.

Ron Paul and his supporters are delusional if they think the USA can return to the gold standard, or even to bimetalism. Tying our country's money supply to a commodity, especially one like gold which would leave us at the mercy of Russia, is pure lunacy. We need a system that can regulate the value of our currency in a rational way. Right now we have the Federal Reserve System. Can it be made more accountable and democratic without returning our country to the pitched battles of the 18th and 19th centuries? Probably, but that's not what the anti-Fed people are asking for. Are they?

--- Steve